Anarchy and Bureaucracy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:
I propose this:
Wherever a central, powerful government does not directly control an area, anarchy takes power in that area.

Statements:
-Central governments that don't directly control an area control the area instead through the use of lower governments (bureaucracies)
-A bureaucracy, in itself, allows for corruption on a level below that of the central government
-The corruption allows the ideas and enforcements of the bureaucracy to differ from that of the central government
-The bureaucracy now becomes seperate from the central government, it becomes a private government
-Now control and ideas are not that of the central government, but that of the bureaucracy, that of an anarchy.

Conclusions:
-The more a central government relies on and creates bureaucracies, the more it loses power to individual anarchies.
-Wherever a central, powerful government does not directly control an area, anarchy takes power in that area.

Please comment, and enlighten me on your opinion of my theory

-Regards, Akumayo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad Hatter:

An interesting theory, but I'm afraid I disagree. (Oh, come on! What sort of debate would this be if everyone just said, "Oh, okay. That makes sense!")

Have you forgotten that in a beauracracy, there are branches to balance the power between the lower government and the central government?

Much like our government, there is more often than not SOME WAY of balancing power.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:

Even then, you fall back into step. Observe:

Argument:
"there are branches to balance the power between the lower government and the central government"

Statements:
-Okay, yes, there are branches of power that seperate the lower governments and central government.
-Someone, or an orginazation, has to run each one of these individual power balancing branches.
-That someone, or orginazation, has individual rights on how to get their work done.
-Becuase of their ability to differ, most of them inevitably will.
-Now that individual power balancing branch is slightly different from the central government.
-The ideas of this power balancing branch (individal bureaucracy) now hold a different point (however slight) from that of the original.

Conclusion:
-The individual bureaucracy that serves to balance power between the lower and central government, becomes different from the central government, just like a lower government would. Therefore, anarchy now serves from this individual bureaucracy down to the lowest governmental level.

Argument overrun.

Ideas/Challenges? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad Hatter:

But I think you've missed the point:

Statement:
-A lower branch becomes an anarchy, and begins enforcing it's own rules and customs

result:
-A higher branch cancels it's actions and notifies the Central Government

Challenges?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:

That's the complication though.

-The branch directly below the central gov. changes its views VERY slightly, so now everything below it has the same SLIGHTLY changed views.
-The branch below that one changes slightly, resulting in another small change for everything below.
-Again
-Again
-Again
-Until we reach the lowest forms of gov. who now have views at least moderately different than that of the central government.

-Conclusion, through small, slow changes on each level, the ending gov has a different view.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad Hatter:

A butterfly effect?

That would only be possible in...
Greece.

Their government is the only one close to Western Civilization (I THINK it's Greece) Government.

In this system I am currently referring to, though, we're talking about three, maybe four branches at most.

The country I mentioned earlier, however, has so many branches I can't remember them all...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:

It only takes three/four branches.

Central Government
State Government
County Government
City Government

Now, imagine that a state changes one idea, then the county further changes the idea, and then the city again changes the idea. Each change is slight, but the resulting idea is different in several ways than the original. Now, imagine that this happens to over half the ideas protrayed by the central government. Now each city has different ideas on how to run things. Each city is like a little Anarchy. 

It's all in the bureauracratic system...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad Hatter:

And the chances of this happening are...?

Besides:
The state can't change anything without the central government's approval.
The county can't change anything without the state's approval.

The county, I think, affects all the cities in that county.

My point is: Even in small changes like that, it's not possible without permission from upper branches.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:

Ah ha! You have been blinded!

States can change whatever they want, so long as it doesn't BREAK any of the central government's laws. They can make new laws, alter existing laws, make laws void, etc without getting the central government's consent. They just can't BREAK any existing laws or regulations in the process. Therefore, there is room for change, room for more change, room for Anarchy.

Why would counties fight over money and population if they accepted the fact that they were one and the same, both equal branches of the central government? They fight, becuase they are equal, becuase they differ in different ways from the central government, becuase they are Anarchies. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad Hatter:
I still disagree.

Perhaps I was ignorant and didn't know fully the laws of government, but I still say your theory is a bit flawed.

What scale is such an anarchy on, exactly?

As in: How powerful is it?
As in: Would the Central Government consider it an anarchy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:
"How powerful is it?"

Not powerful, just seperate, allowing it to fight with neighboring anarchies over money and population.

"Would the Central Government consider it an anarchy?"

Probably not, it differs only slightly enough to be different from the anarchy next to it, not so much that it is a great difference from the central government.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President:
Quote
Akumayo wrote : Ah ha! You have been blinded!

State's can change whatever they want, so long as it doesn't BREAK any of the central government's laws. They can make new laws, alter existing laws, make laws void, etc without getting the central government's consent. They just can't BREAK any existing laws or regulations in the process. Therefore, there is room for change, room for more change, room for Anarchy. 	
End Quote

I understand your argument Akumayo but, unfortunatly, I must disagree.

In our country we have Federal, then State, then local (which consists of County and City) branches of government. You are incorrect when you state that States cannot break existing laws by creating new ones. They, in fact, can. It simply doesn't have to be honored by the Supreme court, which, if it feel necessary, can strike the law down.

I disagree that Anarchy rules lower branches of government. It isn't a form of Anarchy but a customization of smaller, and more easily controled, regions.

The smaller branches MUST respect the laws of the higher branches. The states MUST respect constitutional amendments and laws, counties MUST respect State amendments and laws, and cities MUST respect the amendments and laws of the County. The only exception to these rules are in the occurance of a law or amendment to a state that is not respected in another state. In that case it would go to the supreme court. For instance...North Dakota has just recent outlawed ALL abortions with the exception of saving the mother's life. This law is, of course, not respected in any other state, thus it must go before the Supreme Court to have its merits tested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad Hatter:
For lack of better words:
I agree with Mr. President.

The idea of an anarchy stemming from only slight differences in lower branches seems too... Well, too farfetch'd to me (no offense intended, of course. Afterall, I, too, have my farfetch'd theories).

Can you give us an example of when this has happened in a past occurance?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:
Quote
Mr. President wrote : 
a customization of smaller, and more easily controled, regions.	
End Quote

Ehem... anarchy.
America is a near perfect example.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President:
Yes, but Anarchy is not used in this discrïption. Anarchy is the lack of government, not the minute customizations which are supported by the populous and state legislature.

America is a changing society, not Anarchy in the sense that we think of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:
Quote:
Anarchy is the lack of government	
End Quote
WHAT??!! What textbook are you reading? 

Anarchy: "Anarcy does not imply chaos, nihilism, or anomie, but rather a harmonious anti-authoritarian society. In place of what are regarded as authoritarian political structures and coercive economic institutions, anarchists advocate social relations based upon voluntary association of autonomous individuals, mutual aid, and self-governance." -Source, Wikipedia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President:
The famous Anarchist of our time were specifically against organized government. Take the man who killed Francis Ferdinand and started World War I for instance. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:
We're not discussing anarcy as it was seen through the famous anarchist of our time, but as it is the definition two posts up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad Hatter:
Quote:
America is a near perfect example... 	
End Quote
even in the definition three posts ago, America is not an anarchy.
We seceeded from England because we were a colony that was having some tough problems and being ignored, not because of 'slight differences' caused from one branch to another.

It was a matter of England being too far away to control us. 

In other words: England lost it's power over us.

I repeat:
We did not secceed because of slight differences leading up to major differences. Therefore, America comes NOWHERE NEAR fitting in your theory.

Therefore, I repeat my question:

Can you give us an example where an anarchy was formed due to slight differences in each branch of government? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:
How did you get off on how America was formed ???

I'm talking about the American GOVERNMENT today. The buraucracy that runs it forms many many anarchies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad Hatter:
I assumed you were speaking of America's seccession from England creating an anarchy.

Even in your clarification, I still disagree.
We have a system of checks and balances, which prevents such a thing as this from happening.

I don't have any other arguments for the moment, however, and I will await Mr. President's reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:
As do I.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President:
I'm at a loss as to where to begin...

It is my opinion that there are no true forms of anarchy on any branch of government in America. The people have a say on what laws and rules are passed and the Governor and House and Senates give direction and pass such rules and laws which disallow any such creation of anarchy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:
I disagree, for arguments and statements in my older posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President:
Quote:
Akumayo wrote : I disagree, for arguments and statements in my older posts. 	
End Quote
You have stated disagreement with Scott and I, and yet you have have yet to give an explanation of an anarchy. If a person doesn't know the workings of American politics, then they cannot have such an opinion of anarchy. I think that you are confusing seperation of powers with checks and balances, with anarchy. Just because the Federal government doesn't control everything to the minute detail at a city level doesn't mean that it then becomes an anarchy.

Come on Ak...give us an example! 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:
"-The branch directly below the central gov. changes its views VERY slightly, so now everything below it has the same SLIGHTLY changed views.
-The branch below that one changes slightly, resulting in another small change for everything below.
-Again
-Again
-Again
-Until we reach the lowest forms of gov. who now have views at least moderately different than that of the central government.

-Conclusion, through small, slow changes on each level, the ending gov has a different view, an Anarchy is formed."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad Hatter:
I have the slight feeling of deja vu. 

Didn't you already post that somewhere?

If you did, then I stick to my previous arguments.
Now it's a vicious cycle...

See what you've done?! Why can't you just concede?!?!?!?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:
I await Mr.President's reply
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President:
You are suggesting Ak, that slight differences in the branches of government somehow makes them an anarchy. There is no such thing as an anarchy with no power, or without the power to make large decisions on its own. It is plain to see that a so called anarchy, which you are suggesting exists in America, is an anarchy only in theory. If no real changes can be made, how can you call it a form of government?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akumayo:
Hrm... you're right... it really isn't different enough to be called a new form of government.

I concede.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------